|This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you were looking for a type of greenhouse, you want this article: Polytunnel.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
|— Wikipedian —|
Don't pick fights with the bullies or the cads
Hope is like a path in the countryside
At first there is no path
But if enough people walk in the same direction
The path appears— Lu Xun, 1921
Guten Abend, meine Damen und HerrenEdit
I am Polly Tunnel, living at the far end of a small island and looking at the world down a telephone cable. There's a good chance that you've got here because you've found me editing some references. Some people would call me a WikiGnome. Mostly I edit stub- or start-class articles, trying to expand them into something useful. I was originally attracted to writing for WP when I noticed that news stories that interested me didn't seem to be getting into the mainstream media. That was back in 2010. Slowly I became engaged with the WP project and found that my editing interests took unexpected and curious directions. I took part in discussions on talk pages and witnessed the bullying that is meted out to those who are wrong (and on some occasions those who aren't). I was intrigued to discover what an encyclopaedia actually is (a composite of external sources) and that this means at times it has to be as illogical or untrue as its sources. My instinct is to have an enthusiasm for inclusionism and kindness, but when I did a little impromptu patrolling I found that the nature of some editors' contributions was enough to make me despair about humanity. There was always a difficulty in distinguishing between different types of inappropriate edit, which meant that I found myself not always being courteous to good faith editors and generally being grumpy and arrogant with people (sorry). I also found that I was spending far too much time on the task, and which gave me too little time to actually write articles. Periodically I clear my watchlist and give up patrolling.
I'll include some examples of my favourite bugbears:
- Puerility – scurrilous additions concerning the alleged activities of the editor's peers. I suspect in these cases the description of the editor as "puerile" is literally true. Most commonly found on sex-related articles.
- Opinionatedness – article re-writes by people who think that their unsourced opinions qualify as encyclopaedic content, and try and demonstrate this by repeatedly arguing about them. Most commonly found on politics-related articles.
- Bullying – edits (usually reversions) accompanied by an edit summary telling you how badly you've done, how much you've broken and how you shouldn't be an editor. Often accompanied by misinterpretations of the WP style manual and essays. Most commonly found on railway-related articles.
- Obdurate reversion – edits by people who are convinced that no single character of their work can ever be changed, and who will revert any attempt at improvement, often without any explanation. Most commonly found on Spain- and co-operative related articles.
- Reference removal – edits whose only function is to remove reliable citations of books and national newspapers, leaving the article tagged as having insufficient citations. If there is an explanation in the edit summary it is usually "spam" or "non-neutral". Most commonly found on Thailand- and law-related articles.
Incidentally, if any of my edit summaries don't make sense, the culprit is probably my over-zealous spellchecker...
Immer schön locker bleiben
Memberships and service
Tip of the day